Fair and Just Courts

Supreme Court Term Brought Important Victories on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

At the blockbuster end of the Supreme Court’s 2002-2003 Term, several close decisions helped distinguish the term as a monumental one for civil rights and civil liberties. According to a new analysis by People For the American Way Foundation of the Court’s key decisions in these areas, several rulings demonstrated how the Court’s divisions could spell disaster for these and other individual rights and protections if another right-wing justice or two joins the Court’s ranks.

Reflections on the Importance of the Bork Defeat and Future Supreme Court Nominees on Americans' Rights and Freedoms

For all those who have ever questioned the importance of the Senate’s bipartisan rejection of Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination in 1987, this week’s Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and privacy should be a resounding answer.

Senator Hatch Adopts Divisive, Reprehensible Religious Right Strategy

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has repeatedly charged that senators and activists are opposing confirmation of Bush nominees because of their religious beliefs. These charges poison an already divisive judicial nominations atmosphere, especially in advance of a possible Supreme Court vacancy and nomination.

Nation "Courting Disaster" With Next Supreme Court Vacancy

With a Supreme Court retirement possible in a matter of days, PFAW Foundation has updated Courting Disaster to get the word out about what is at stake should the High Court tilt any further to the right.

Courting Disaster 2005

What would the actual impact be on Americans' rights and freedoms if the views of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas become the majority views on the Supreme Court? This report examines Scalia's and Thomas's opinions to answer that question, focusing on cases in which Scalia and Thomas have been in the minority on the Court, and the answer is nothing short of chilling.

Commentators Across the Country Dismiss Myth of Judicial Crisis, Debunk Claims that Judicial Filibusters are Unconstitutional

Hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee and the Senate Rules Committee were both attempts to grant legitimacy to the absurd notion that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional and that the Senate should change its very nature as the more deliberative house of Congress so that the narrow GOP majority could ensure approval of even the most extreme Bush administration judicial nominees.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious